Midnite  Unfortunately it appears you are incorrect, so there can be no right answer. Three of the four you have listed are actually the CORRECT play as determined by the number of decks in the game and the composition of the remaining cards.

Midnite  Unfortunately it appears you are incorrect, so there can be no right answer. Three of the four you have listed are actually the CORRECT play as determined by the number of decks in the game and the composition of the remaining cards.

Grifter

Yes, Grifter, but of those four, only standing on 12 vs 2 becomes correct in counts that have a reasonable possibility of happening, ie a remaining deck or shoe rich, but not extremely rich, in 10's. I'll defer to your greater experience, but I'm guessing that the circumstances must be really extreme to make correct whatever two of the other three you say are sometimes correct. When the poll's over, let us know what you mean.

I cast my vote and then the results to date showed I was in the majority.

..... only standing on 12 vs 2 becomes correct in counts that have a reasonable possibility of happening

Nope, Dawg, that just "ain't" true. I wouldn't have made that post if that were the case. The other two of the three I referred to are also 'common' counts. Ten double ten only takes a count of +4. A7 vs A only takes a count of -2. I'm sure you had both of these many times in your 2,000 hand test.

Grifter, Midnight and I went through the cards played problem last night.You did not see Midnights post where he said assume each to be the firsthand off the top. In other words forget about index numbers/count, etc.

We both deleted these post so as to avoid telling people what we thought.Giving the question away,etc

[quote=Desert Dog]..... only standing on 12 vs 2 becomes correct in counts that have a reasonable possibility of happening

Nope, Dawg, that just "ain't" true. I wouldn't have made that post if that were the case. The other two of the three I referred to are also 'common' counts. Ten double ten only takes a count of +4. A7 vs A only takes a count of -2. I'm sure you had both of these many times in your 2,000 hand test.

Grifter[/quote]

I stand corrected. My experience and reading are more limited. Fred's book shows 12 vs 2 as Stand if the KISS II or III count hits 22 (TC +5) in single/double and 25 (TC +8) in multideck, but unless I missed it, those other three hands don't get any mention in his advantage strategy play charts in the KISS system, though I haven't taken the time to understand his advanced Mentor Count charts, so I figured they had to be way "off the charts".

Dog, on A7 vs 9 you will need to consider the odds rather than index.To save you some trouble, if you hit you win 9 of 20, staying is 8 of 20.Unexpected huh!!! I might also add that A7 vs A is part ofthe "NIFTY" 15 because it cost you very little, how about that........

Which is the Worst Mistake?: On average (that is, at a neutral count - which in fact will be representative of all the times you have these hands), standing with A/7 vs. 9 is the biggest mistake of the four.Standing with A/7 vs. 9 loses 8% more of your bet than hitting.Standing with 12 vs. 2 loses 4% more of your bet than hitting.Doubling with 10 vs. 10 loses 3% more of one bet than hitting.Standing with A/7 vs. Ace lose 0.5% more of your bet than hitting.

Thanks, Fred.But, I was going to wait until Friday (11/7) to give the answers.I was trying to show that some bad plays, are not as bad as they seem. Standing with A-7 vs the dealers Ace and hitting 10-2 vs 4, for example. Both are very close plays.

Well, of course I got it wrong. Simple logic don't work all the time.The high index number for 10 vs 10 and the fact that it's a doubledid not work out as expected. The odds on A7 vs 9 should have mademe think more.

MIDNITE: I'm really sorry to have jumped the gun like that. Your post said the answers would be posted on 7/11 and I didn't think long enough to realize that it probably meant 11/7.By the way, although A/7 vs. 9 is the biggest mistake of the four "when you have the hand", it's NOT the mistake that will take the most percentage off your overall game. That's because some hands come up much more often than others. Did you want to forestall "those" rankings while everybody guesses how they shake out at the bottom line? Afterwards, you/we can post the "quantified" percentage cost of each mistake. Taken by themselves, they're all quite small.

Fred- No sweat about posting the answers. It had a lot of "views", but not a lot voted in the poll and my thanks to those who did. My thinking and the reason for the poll was, IF more players new how close some plays are, they would be less likely to get upset at the "dumb" plays of others at the table. Also they may be more inclined to, play the board, at times and not just "always" play basic strategy, like your Magnificent 7 hands. Of course, most of your hands will still be played with basic strategy, even the close ones, unless there is an imbalance of cards on the table. I will give one example, Just incase someone hasn't bought Blackjack Bluebook II, yet....You have 10-2 and the dealer has a 4 up. You look at the board (table) and see a Lot of high cards. You now ask yourself, is my chance of winning "this" hand better by standing (like BS says) or by taking a hit. If you knew that hitting a 10-2 vs 4, is an almost dead even play anyway, but now there are several high cards on the table, it would appear that hitting would be the right choise, in this case. I think most readers would be interested in the ranking of hands and they sure should be interested in the mistake that takes the most percentage off your game.

Midnight, Can you tell us what the dollar impact is for a 4 hr session,$20 bet average. Playing each hand wrong and if possible, the individualhand impact. I think something like this is what Renzey is suggesting.

Based on the number of 12's I get this would be good to know.

One other thing: I watched your poll very close and all that weregoing to vote, voted.

Ed - I'm on my way out and don't have time to check your math, but that number for 12 vs 2 looks very high. Your EV per hour with the $20 bet is -$10/hr. If you add 0.54 to that loss, that is an increase of 5.4%....for just misplaying the 12 vs 2????? :?:

I did that very quickly in my head.....I might be way, way wrong...If so, sorry.

Mr Ed, 12vs2 right off the top is limited to 8 different ways. Youmore than likely were not aware of the rules. So the results is more orless cut in half.

No need to figure the 10vs10, I can see where thats going. I stillcan't figure why 10vs10 has a higher index number than 12vs2. Itmust be related to something that I'm not seeing. I would have thoughtthat the index was a strong reflection of the odds.

It's not so straightfoward to calculate indices. Think about what extra 10's do to 12v2 versus 10v10.

Say there are only 10's left. With 12v2, if you hit, you loose. If you stand, dealer busts and you win. With 10v10, you push if you double or not. This extreme example shows that there's more impact to changing your strategy with 12v2 versus 10v10.

In fact, the only reason you double 10v10 at high counts is because you know the dealer doesn't have BJ, and you have a chance to get an Ace. It's still a very risky move - at +5, you have about 40% chance of loosing, 17% chance of pushing and 43% chance of winning.

Mr Ed, We could talk all night about why 10,2 is or is not the same as 2,10.Right off the top of the shoe I think they are the same. But, what does itmatter; your numbers are correct based on the way you look at it.

You make some good points relating to card impact to the 10 vs 10and 12 vs 2 and I quite agree. I suspect that the answer to just howthe index numbers are determined goes deep into card countingtheory and one should just accept it and go on to more practical things.

I saw an article about 6:5 blackjack. It seems that even the Casino personnel don't like this game. Makes the place look cheap(which is true).I was wondering where you folks think this is going and can we expectmore such greed in the future?

Mr Ed, I know your numbers are necessary for the calculations that youwere doing. I should have given it more thought........

Casinos will have 6:5 BJ as long as they can get a way with it. Don't play it - you might as well play roulette.

As a policy, I don't give advice at the tables, but with 6:5 BJ I would recommend it. At quarter tables, stand behind the table and say really loud - "Look at that 6:5 BJ! - When you make a $100 bet, it's like giving away $30 every blackjack you get!"

At nickel tables say,"With a $10 bet, you're giving away 3 bucks every blackjack you get; they just want to give out white chips to get you to tip more. What a scam!"

Or if you feel uncomfortable telling people they are stupid, make sure you slam 6:5 BJ every time you sit down at a 3:2 table. "I can't believe people play 6:5 BJ. Don't they understand they're giving away $30 every time they get BJ with a $100 bet?!? Sheeese!!" "Those tables are bad luck!"

Mr. Ed  I agree with Ray that we probably should get on to more practical matters, but here is my response to your statement that misplaying 12 vs 2 costs the player 5.4% in 100 hands of blackjack.

The original question was what does it actually cost to make a mistake if you play 100 hands (1 hour) of blackjack at $20.00 per hand You chose 12 vs 2 as an example and said 5.4% .. My answer is as follows: